The Candidates
DaveG’s original ruling on the field has been overturned.
Over 14 hours have passed since Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum on Presidency concluded, and neither CNN nor any other media outlet have proceeded to interpret the senior McCain adviser’s e-mail, received and reported by John King, as a newsworthy retraction, or reversal, of McCain’s statement four days ago, in which the Republican nominee told the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that he won’t rule out a pro-choice running mate.
I suspected the call was wrong, but waited to throw the red flag until there was incontrovertible evidence to bolster my skepticism (coming in the form of subsequent, and notable omissions; the absence of a reiteration of this alleged ‘news’ by CNN, or a corroborating report by another network or member of the press).
In reviewing McCain’s comments from last night, there is, quite the contrary, reason to believe the Arizona senator offered additional information to confirm his comfort with a supporter of abortion rights such as Tom Ridge or Rudy Giuliani as his prospective vice president. Two specific remarks by McCain stood out as attempts to assuage the concerns of leery single-issue social conservatives.
MCCAIN: I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate, and as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.
WARREN: OK, we don’t have to go longer on that one.
WARREN: Define marriage.
MCCAIN: Union…A union between man and a woman — between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage.
MCCAIN: Could I…are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices, or should I mention that?
WARREN: We will get to that.
MCCAIN: OK, alright, OK. But that’s –
WARREN: Remember, you got ahead…you went and answered all my questions. That’s good.
MCCAIN: No, no, that’s…When we speak of the issue of the rights of the unborn, we need to talk about judges.
UPDATE: Ridge: GOP would accept abortion-rights VP
Tom Ridge, this morning, on “Fox News Sunday“:
WALLACE: Governor Ridge, John McCain stirred the vice presidential pot this week when he said the following about you, and let’s put it up on the screen. “Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders, and he has happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out.”
Question: Given its long pro-life history, do you really think that the Republican Party would accept a pro-choice running mate?
RIDGE: My friend of 25 years is passionately pro-life. He is also passionately a believer that the Republican Party must have a big tent. And I think, frankly, what he was just saying to the rest of the world is that we need to accept both points of view.
He’s not judgmental about me or my belief. He just disagrees with me. And there’s no doubt in my mind, no doubt whatsoever, that there would be — he would have a strong pro-life administration. No question about it.
WALLACE: And to answer my question specifically, do you think the Republican Party would accept a pro-choice running mate?
RIDGE: Well, I think that would be up to — first of all, to John to decide whether he wants a pro-choice running mate, and then we would have to see how the Republican Party would rally around it.
At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party will be comfortable with whatever John makes.
WALLACE: Now, I just want to follow up one more time on this. The last time you were here, we talked about your pro-choice views.
RIDGE: Right.
WALLACE: And here’s what you had to say.
RIDGE: Well, I believe what I believe, and I’ve had that point of view before I got into elected office. I’ve had it when I served and I have it now.
WALLACE: Governor, have you talked with McCain about your pro-choice views on abortion and whether you would follow his pro-life views if you were to become his running mate?
RIDGE: Well, we’ve had no discussions on this very important issue. As I said before, he understands the majority of the Republican Party disagrees with me on this issue. We’ve had no conversations.
And the last time I checked, the vice president is not an independent voice. He echoes the position of the president of the United States.
WALLACE: And that’s what you would do if you were the running mate?
RIDGE: I think that’s the responsibility of the vice president. If you’re unwilling or unable to do that, then I think you should defer to someone else.
UPDATE II: Bobby Jindal, earlier today, on Meet the Press:
MR. GREGORY: Governor Jindal, this week Senator McCain indicated that he would be open to a pro-choice running mate like former Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Ridge. As somebody who opposes abortion rights, conservative in the party, do you think that would be a mistake that would hurt Senator McCain?
GOV. JINDAL: Look, I think people will end up voting for who’s running for president. The bottom line is this: Senator McCain has a pro-life record. He said he’ll have a pro-life administration. What’s most important to me as a pro-life voter is what kinds of judges will the next president appoint to the Supreme Court. Are they going to be judges that will read the Constitution or will they be judges that will try to create laws? This Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling struck down a death penalty case for Louisiana, a death penalty law in Louisiana for child rapists. We don’t want activist judges that will be creating law instead of just reading the Constitution.
You know, last night Senator Obama had a chance in a church in California to talk about abortion. He said he opposes late-term abortions. His voting record says different. He’s always voted for those things. I wish he would just say honestly he’s pro-choice, he’s not a pro-life candidate. With Senator McCain, we know he’s pro-life. There are two men running for president, two major candidates on the ticket. We have more–as a pro-life voter, I certainly have more confidence in the judges that Senator McCain would appoint to the Supreme Court.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
If he goes that route, I can almost guarantee you he will lose this election, in spite of the fact that he did well last night.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:53 am
McCain has options…. he can wait for who Obama picks… If Obama takes Bayh, then McCain should take Ridge… But if Obama takes the Kansas Governor… McCain should take Romney.
We are all on the same team here folks…. calm down… get off your computer… and go help the Republican party….. have you gone door to door yet? Have you made phone calls? It is time to get off your butt and get to work! Let McCain and his team make the right decision… I can guarantee you one thing… they aren’t going to http://www.race42008.com to make the VP pick.
What we saw last night was an awesome display from Senator McCan… he was on fire, and the polls will start moving in the next few days in his favor.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Ridge might accept - or even be - a pro-choice VP.
But I’m not convinced that the party would accept a pro-choicer, not with McCain already not that trusted by evangelicals.
It would be very hard for many - including myself - to suppot any ticket with a pro-choicer on it.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Well, the entire panel on TW, George Will among them, agreed that if McCain picked a pro-choice VP after last night it erase all the good he did last night and make it seem less sincere.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I think that I’ll just agree to disagree with Aron on this. I know that McCain himself didn’t rule out a pro-choice veep in the townhall, but the email that John King received from a senior McCain adviser pretty much did. King didn’t quote from it verbatim, but the implication was that a pro-choice running mate was no longer an option. Anything could happen but I would bet against it at this point.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Thanks, Aron. I interpreted yesterday’s comment different from most. Just as I did McCain’s original comment about it being “difficult” to pick a pro-choice nominee.
Words have meaning, folks. Politicians parse very specifically. Pay attention.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Aron/Metro, keep grasping at straws; it may be the only way you two can keep your sanity. Then again, I would love to see Biden finally eviscerate Rudy in person during the VP debate.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
For lack of a better place, here are the results from our on line poll for VP, here it is. There were 52 qualifying ballots:
—————–1st——–2nd———3rd
Mitt Romney——-19———9———–5
Sarah Palin——-10——–10———–3
Tim Pawlenty——-6———6———-10
Rudy Giuliani——7———4———–4
Lieberman———-1———5———–2
Ridge————–2———2———–2
Sanford————0———3———–4
Huckabee———–1———2———–0
Cantor————-1———0———–5
Meg Whitman——–1———1———–1
A few other stragglers with less.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Metro,
What you aren’t acknowledging is that John King didn’t quote the email verbatim. He gave us his interpretation of the email, in his own words.
It was very obvious that John King’s understanding (the only guy who actually read the email) was that the email was intended to rule out picking a pro-choice VP. Who knows what the email actually said that gave him that impression, but the words you are parsing are John King’s, not the McCain advisor. John King was clear enough in his understanding of the email that parsing them like you have is really not possible.
John King told us that he got a message from a McCain advisor which lead him to believe that the McCain camp will not be choosing a pro-choice VP.
If you want to argue the point argue that the messages have been so mixed from different senior advisors and from McCain himself that we can’t rule anything out.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
#9: That’s a good point.
#7: Some Republican you are, jerk.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life VP?? Who the ‘F’ cares?
What matters at this point is Exciting vs. Dull.
Super Exciting:
Sarah Palin
Ted Nugent
Exciting:
Mitt Romney
Meg Whitman
Rudy Giuliani
Fred Smith
Eric Cantor
John Kasich
Mark Sanford
John Thune
Mid-Level:
Joe Lieberman
Charlie Crist
Boring:
Tom Ridge
Rob Portman
Super-Boring:
Tim Pawlenty
August 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Even the Republicans I hate most, I don’t wish for them to be eviscerated in a debate when they represent my party’s chances at the White House.
You have issues. Seek help.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Dondero, Pawlenty is a notch above Ridge/Portman in the boring department. Watch him more.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
The funny thing is Rudy would wipe the floor with Biden in a debate. I liked Rudy a lot before the primaries and as much during, but seeing him jump on ship just like Romney has only made me like him more since.
Hopefully Rudy is able to decide in the next month whether he wants to go for Albany or be part of a McCain administration. I think McCain should announce a shadow cabinet and unless Rudy declines because he wants to run for Governor he should be part of that cabinet.
Quite a few people suggest that he should be AG, where he certainly would do an excellent job, however, I think Rudy’s largest contribution would be at Homeland Security where he could secure the borders and ports and in general strengthen our ability to fight and respond to terrorism.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
#12, Based on your tone and comments about Huckabee and other social issues/conservatives et al, I seriously doubt your comment.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Agree that we’re getting lots of conflicting signals from the McCain camp. I do think that Lieberman is a lot less likely today than he was a week ago though. The Lieberman trial balloon that was released last week brought along with it the notion that McCain would run an apolitical administration, probably for one term. The McCain of last night didn’t look like a man who would take a one term pledge, and also seemed to be reasserting his conservatism, not distancing himself from it. He seemed to be running more as a big tent conservative than as an apolitical quasi-independent last night, which probably means that McCain will select a running mate who reinforces big tent conservatism. That’s not Lieberman.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Aron,
If McCain thinks he can play games with conservatives this year, on this issue, he is certifiable and deserves to lose. We are talking about values and honesty and straight talk ( express), not the wobbling nuances of his opponent. If you say you define life and legal rights as beginning at conception, in front of millions of people, then you are saying that abortion is taking away those legal rights and is, effectively, murder. If that is the case, and you then pick a Pro-Choice VP who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency , you are either lying, distorting, dissembling or really don’t give a damn what your views are as long as your audience of the moment applauds. This one situation is a real deal breaker with Evangelicals . We discussed it at length this morning.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
#17 well said. Bravo!
August 17th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Aron, my hope is that one day we will see a pro choice republican candidate, but it is clear ridge will not be the VP. You forgot to mention that ridge said he never talked VP with McCain, and at this point we know McCain has talked to the shortlist candidates. So ridge is off. The only hope we have left is Rudy, but he said no.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Agree that we’re getting lots of conflicting signals from the McCain camp. I do think that Lieberman is a lot less likely today than he was a week ago though. The Lieberman trial balloon that was released last week brought along with it the notion that McCain would run an apolitical administration, probably for one term. The McCain of last night didn’t look like a man who would take a one term pledge, and also seemed to be reasserting his conservatism, not distancing himself from it. He seemed to be running more as a big tent conservative than as an apolitical quasi-independent last night, which probably means that McCain will select a running mate who reinforces big tent conservatism. That’s not Lieberman.
Ridge has gotta be the favorite for VP as of today. I’d give him a 35-40% chance of being chosen.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
#20, with what proof, as Ridge basically told us this morning he is not on the list.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Question for all of the big Romney supporters. If you still think that Romney will be the VP, then why has McCain not capitalized on Romney’s ability to raise money and announced Romney as his VP early? From what I read before, some projected that Romney could raise close to 50 million for McCain by the convention. So if it really is Romney, then why hasn’t he already been announced??
August 17th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Texas,
Because he hasn’t needed the money and the RNC has had plenty available. If you can effectively spend a $ 1 in a market, what good is $ 2 in the same market. McCain is at no financial disadvantage. He has 2 weeks to get rid of $ 20 million. Then he gets
$ 42 million for each of the remaining 2 months + the RNC money. What good is a lot of additional money? Plus, you know quite well Romney has already raised a lot of money for McCain.
Big question for all of you ” non-Romney ” supporters. If Romney isn’t the VP choice, why has the DNC spent so much money running anti- Romney ads? Why haven’t they bothered to run anti-Pawlenty ads or anti Palin ads. Not just the Information sheets
but the full video ads ?
August 17th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
#23, let us be honest, that is the Michigan DP that created that web ad, not the national DNC. What is even on TV? No.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
#23 I was not trying to be snarky. I was just thinking that since Romney is good at raising money, and many people have said they will not donate until they know who the VP is, and if it is indeed Romney, then why not make the announcement early so that those who have been waiting to open up their wallets can do so before the convention.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
If you say you define life and legal rights as beginning at conception, in front of millions of people, then you are saying that abortion is taking away those legal rights and is, effectively, murder. If that is the case, and you then pick a Pro-Choice VP who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency , you are either lying, distorting, dissembling or really don’t give a damn what your views are as long as your audience of the moment applauds.
Craig,
Rick Warren asked John McCain: “At what point does a baby get human rights?”
If you were to ask me that same question, I would also say at the point of conception. The issue, however, is at what point in the course of fetal development are the rights of a pregnant woman trumped by a developing child inside her.
McCain obviously does not believe the right of all fetuses trump the rights of pregnant women because he supports abortion rights for girls and women who were impregnated as victims of rape or incest.
Even the revered Justice Scalia is of the belief that fetuses are not entitled to the constitutional rights of personhood.
Here is what Scalia told Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes in April:
“My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice.”
Just because I am an originalist who believes Roe should be overturned, doesn’t mean I conveniently ignore Blackstone’s Commentaries (1765-1769), which our Founding Fathers relied upon in drafting our Constitution.
At the time of our nation’s founding, previable fetuses in America were not considered “little humans,” and even the deliberate killing of a developing child after quickening was handled legally as nothing more than a misdemeanor.
William Blackstone wrote: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick* with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.
An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother’s womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to it’s use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. And in this point the civil law agrees with ours.
* Quickening occurs in the middle of a pregnancy. A woman pregnant for the first time typically feels fetal movements at about 20-21 weeks, whereas a woman who has already given birth at least two times will typically feel movements around 18 weeks.